hands up, heads up hoo's in for the big give us H on the NHS/ health board campaign?

[charlie clean]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2289283.ece

They might still do the diamorphine nsh script as discussed on here before.

I recall that 'home-grow' initiatiative under the wonderfully spaced-out Blair govt. Soon afterwards, a freewheeling lady travelling alone and nowhere-in-particular in her camper van stumbled across a field full of opium poppies somewhere in Central England. " Routine satellite photos" reported signs of activity and police were dispatched to investigate. Transpired the travelling girl had rung all her mates. About 100 wide-eyed freaks in their motley motors toasted the rural coppers with steaming mugs of poppy tea. More ambitious compadres chucked the slitting tools and embraced mother earth at sight of the cops. They were all moved on and there were no arrests.

Shame you deleted your posts, Bluebell, leaves the thread with an uneven ring and makes our Sadie sound quite scizophrenic. If you still believe whatever you said - I missed the window of opportunity to find out - I'm not entirely sure your reason for deletion is logical.

What baffles me is why diamorphine was taken off the menu in the first place. Under Rolleston, and unlike the US of the time, there was no organised crime nvolvement in the drugs biz. Indeed, there wasn't much drugs business at all beyond the odd junkie selling a jack outside the all-night Boots on Picadilly. Methadone may have appeared a godsend to the over-criminalised US addict facing 3 years help for a first offence and 10 years for a second one but UK compatriots were intitally distinctly underwhlemed by the new wonder drug.

The real, perhaps only reason for methadone being foisted onto the clinic system was morality based. Methadone appealed because of its 'non-euphoric' properties. The kind of people who dislike pleasure so easily gained, without being earned by 'hard work', rather start with an idea and adjust the facts to fit - way into the eighties they were still insisting overprescribing GPs under Rolleston were the cause of the heroin epidemic.

Then they found alliance with the corporate-minded incomers attracted by the bread and new entrepreneurial opportunity. The rest is history. 'User' numbers have increased every year since. Ever more desperate bullshit has been flung at at an unsuspecting public to explain away the phenomenon. Fear has inevitably become the main tactic - these junkies are scary, count on us to defend your property from their thieving ways and save your children. Junkie - get you jamas on, you're off to rehab, behave and we'll give you a job cleaning the clinic shithouse when you're clean enough yourself.

Madness, fucking madness. End the fear now, halt the scammers and let the children boogie. You know it makes sense. I can't afford to commission a Mori but I think yoof use would dimish if heroin came from chemist not corner. There would be no easy money to attract impressionable kids, and demystification would spell the end of heroin chic. Never heard of methadone chic or a perfume called paracetemol.

Interesting thing, this internet. Useful, as citizens of Egypt, Bahrain and Libya have recently discovered. But it's your individual life. Enjoy it the best you can. Don't wheel, don't steal and always love your neighbour. Whether you're on drugs, heat or the 73 bus.

 

[B9]

I still keep wondering whether a quiet deal has been struck with the opium/heroin cartels by the coalition & this in conjuction with the reduction in the levels of prescribing is some kind of Cameron social masterplan - paranoia means you never get bored

 

[been head]

u poor silly fu(k wits .i#m so bord i#m on blue light, i hate the Verve but they right drugs dont work... i got bags ,wraps,pans,pills,and i should be in hot country clean. i thinmk ill drink some meth meth smoke aome k sniff some k eat some roche blues n keep keepin on

your shit makes no sense.

i woud be more than pissed off if any of the tax money i have to pay went on giving heroin to addicts. so would most of the country.

off course i think heroin like all other drugs should be legal for people to buy them selves, but i dont think people who choose not to take drugs should have to pay for drugs for people that do.

 

[WarmRushes]

Your tax money is already going to help heroin addicts, through policing/prison costs, methadone and subutex prescriptions on the NHS. Prescribing heroin to addicts would infact save a large amount of your precious tax, as a major chunk of drug related crime (ie. most crime) would be demolished over night, addicts would be able to work and pay their own way, instead of being criminalised for their actions. Not all addicts are scum bags, or are indeed criminals outside of buying the drugs they need. People also don't always have much of a choice when it comes to getting addicted to drugs, many people from all types of background are effected for so many different reasons. This is about harm reductions and what is essentially right. Is it fair to consistently destroy a persons life because they have developed a drug problem? Helping them with safe, clean drugs would be a huge step forward in sorting out this social disease.

 

[been head]

if the nhs gave heroin to addicts, how would that make them more able to work than if they brought from a dealer?

im not even slightly saying all heroin addicts are scum bags, my brother was addicted to heroin and crack for about 15 years and he was a decent guy like many of his addict friends. one of the reasons he ended up giving it up was because he was sick of the life style of constantly having to meet dealers and the stigma that was attached to it. if when he was using the nhs said they woud give him clean heroin for free im pretty sure he would still be using now.

like i said all drugs should be legalised but why should tax payers have to fund peoples addictions.

 

[B9]

if the nhs gave heroin to addicts, how woud that make them more able to work than if they brought from a dealer?

Organised drug regime helps to = more organised life

but why should tax payers have to fund peoples addictions.

Ideally they shouldn't but if it costs less to free script them than it would for them to get the money themselves via various means then it would make long term financial sense.
As to addictcs working - when there are jobs available we could talk about that, work is a great help as a cure for addiction IME

 

[WarmRushes]

If the NHS provided it, the quality would be 100 %. The lifestyle would no longer exist. People wouldn't be shooting violin wax, or have no idea of the potency of their gear as it would be a pure, measured dose. No one would have to score on the street and put themselves at risk of ODing, shooting harmful cuts, being arrested etc etc etc. They would simply be taking their medication and getting on with their lifes until they where able to reduce off their drug and address the core problems keeping them on the gear in the first place.

Tax payers should have a heart maybe? Think of it like being prescribed any other medication. It would transform the lives of 300,000 vulnerable people..I agree that all drugs should be legal, but addictive drugs such as heroin are the most important, for health and safety reasons. To keep our society safe, for compassion.

 

[pinkpapaver]

yeah, and not forgetting george bests liver

 

[WarmRushes]

^ I find it strange that people are happy to pay for alcoholics/smokers to get all the free treatment they need through their tax and not bat an eyelid, just because these drugs are legal and have no stigma attached. It's been said time and time again, but these two kill more people than all other drugs combined.

 

[pinkpapaver]

Organised drug regime helps to = more organised life



Ideally they shouldn't but if it costs less to free script them than it would for them to get the money themselves via various means then it would make long term financial sense.
As to addictcs working - when there are jobs available we could talk about that, work is a great help as a cure for addiction IME

im a working user, i hate the word addict, its shit.

thru this drought iv seen theres so many like myself who work to fund a habit, so theres so many of us pay inflated taxes, so we deserve something back.

and guess whats happened to me coz of the drought?

ive now gone off work sick because my heads been so befuddled by all this, so there y'are now

 

[pinkpapaver]

so how the fuck do we go about mobilising in this?

i mean, when you look at the famous bag head list, there are so many creative forces on that list, it just goes to show, its not the big demon that its made out to be by heroin screws you up campaign circa 1985.

thats what got me into it to be honest, it got me so intrigued by it, this dangerous dangerous thing, is that mad? i was only a kid, but it kind of got me hooked into the idea of heroin, for what reason i dont know, reading the drugs leaflets that said gives the user a wrapped up in cotton wool kind of feeling ho hum , never mind, curiosity

 

[been head]

^ I find it strange that people are happy to pay for alcoholics/smokers to get all the free treatment they need through their tax and not bat an eyelid, just because these drugs are legal and have no stigma attached. It's been said time and time again, but these two kill more people than all other drugs combined.

i dont know of any tax payer thats happy to pay for treatment for alcoholics and smokers. i also dont think that supplying heroin to a heroin addict is treatment.

 

[Myshkin]

i dont know of any tax payer thats happy to pay for treatment for alcoholics and smokers. i also dont think that supplying heroin to a heroin addict is treatment.

I'm perfectly happy about it to be honest.

Sounds a little like you're referring to the same 'taxpayer' demographic who have no qualms about financing grain barons or a bunch of parasitic German aristocrats though.

 

[WarmRushes]

The fact remains that your tax money is spent on these things, and although it might not seem like treatment to you, it's been proven that freely available heroin to people who require it reduces crime related to drug users, cuts down deaths/health problems associated with using and also stops new users gaining access to heroin as the black market element is removed and therefore cuts down on the overall number of addicts. Surely you can see how this would be beneficial not just to the addicts, but to society over all? The idea is not that junkies can just keep on doin drugs, getting as fucked up as possible all at the expensive of someone else, it just makes sense. People are going to score drugs regardless of the law, and in doing so there is massive risks. Giving them the drug just reduces these risks and gets them in a clinical environment where there addiction can be managed, and steps can be taken to successfully get them OFF the drug.

 

[been head]

i can see your point. if giving addicts heroin did stop new users getting into heroin, then it would be a very good idea, im not sure that it would but i can see how it mite. i appreciate that crime would probally go down as well, and money would be saved in the prison system. i do think though that some addicts would never want to get off heroin if it was made so easy and safe for them to get.

overall maybe it would be a positive thing to do but some people would definatly take the piss out of the situation and continue to commit crime and buy street heroin as well as getting the heroin on the nhs.

 

[charlie clean]

I still keep wondering whether a quiet deal has been struck with the opium/heroin cartels by the coalition & this in conjuction with the reduction in the levels of prescribing is some kind of Cameron social masterplan - paranoia means you never get bored

Yep, a lot of peops been having those kinda thoughts. I don't mean about the rehab counsellors or other service employees nabbed for selling drugs on the side. Le Carre fictionalises in one of his books the true story of a UK customs man who somehow found all about a huge shipment of coke travelling on container ship from S America to Europe. He's even identified and marked the particular container that held the stash and, with the ship having a nine day voyage ahead of it, prepared for a world-record bust and personal glory.

No chance. Poor honest fella had fallen foul of big boy's politics. The UK arms business was involved somewhere and Lloyds of London had effectively if indirectly underwritten the whole enterprise. A succession of governments debated obscure technicalities of soveriegnty until the consignment was safely unloaded and distributed. The customs man resigned. The beat goes on.

PP, I dunno if you're an addict but I hope you don't use anyone. 'User' is an ok if prefaced with 'drug' or 'heroin', but too often, it isn't. It's like the implication giving up drugs is the only way to 'get clean'.

The "why should the taxpayer subsidise it?" is an old one and can be applied to lung cancer patients or the welfare system. Or indeed the NHS. If common humanity is inimical to 'market forces' why can't addicts or heroin-users buy it? If they cut out the glass and profit-enhancement bumf of the pharmaceutical boys the minimum-wage earner or even dole scrounger may readily afford it. Without theft.

Such objections are part of a big smokescreen. Can't quite understand who encourages folk to think that way, or why folk seem to let them 8)

 

[WarmRushes]

I agree, it's not perfect, but the current system is failing absolutely. No one wins. Atleast we could try to move on as a society if the problem was addressed openly and properly as a social issue, not a criminal one. As far as people taking the piss, this is also true, but it would free up a lot of policing so real criminals could be dealt with properly. It's true that some people don't want to change, but atleast they would have some semblance of a real life, instead of just being handed out another habit in the form of methadone/subutex and perpetuating the cycle of the last however many years. It's time for a change, our attitude towards drugs and drug users in the UK is shameful and archaic. It's not working, whether you smoke weed, take pills when you go clubbing, or shoot heroin. Things need to change for all of us, and a good step would be freeing up the prison system and helping long term heroin addicts get their life's back.

 

[jimboid1]

would be great to see a new deal-type back to work B scheme. ie. as long as you work you are given .5 in the morning of B from the chemist and then another take home of .5 after work in the evening. Of course the chemist would also provide quality jimmy with no veg oil on it for the smokable type or, if you prefer good sir, a fixable solution. How many junkies would jump at this proposal?

 

[WarmRushes]

would be great to see a new deal-type back to work B scheme. ie. as long as you work you are given .5 in the morning of B from the chemist and then another take home of .5 after work in the evening. Of course the chemist would also provide quality jimmy with no veg oil on it for the smokable type or, if you prefer good sir, a fixable solution. How many junkies would jump at this proposal?

I'm a student but I'd certainly jump at the chance. Getting junkies back in to a real routine, where they didn't have to go and find a score would certainly be a good start on the road to recovery. Plenty of people are able to hold down a job and maintain a habit (well, pre-drought I guess it was easier) though, not all of em are unemployed or unemployable.

 

[Shambles]

Of all the possible objections to legal, scripted heroin for addicts I have never understood the "I'm not paying to support some scumbag's habit with my tax money" one at all. It makes absolutely zero sense. As pointed out several times already, putting aside the humanitarian, societal and medical benefits, the financial argument is the one unarguable thing in favour of scripted scag that even a Daily Mail columnist couldn't object to. The savings in tax spending would be billions upon billions anually. You could probably knock 5p off income tax with the savings in crime and NHS costs alone :D

I deleted my posts cause i was being argumentative/goading and that's not what here is all about! Yes I had an opinion, but although not ashamed of it would rather let it rest.

Haha! Shame you felt the need to delete your posts cos you were only saying what many (probably most) tend to think of the idea. Now it's gone though I must admit I am quite amused at arguing with myself. I do a good argument - especially after a few drinkies - but arguing the toss with myself is a new one even for me